An anonymous commentor brought to our attention that the UN is making a push towards mandatory paternity leave. The key word there is mandatory. The UN is not saying that businesses that can afford it may want to consider offering paternity leave or that men should have the choice of taking paternity leave if offered. The UN is explicitly saying that men must be forced to take paternity leave because maternity leave oppresses women due to the fact that maternity leave creates an incentive for businesses to hire men. The UN has admitted that the only way for men and women to be equal at work is to “handicap” men.

I chose the word “handicap” for a reason because what we are seeing is the prequel to Harrison Bergeron. (For those of you who are unfamiliar with Harrison Bergeron, it is a science fiction short story about a future America where anyone of above average intelligence, strength, etc. has to be handicapped to the lowest common denominator. For example, anyone who was more intelligent than a moron would be “handicapped” by implants that prevent that person from mentally concentrating.) Feminists are treating Harrison Bergeron as a how to guide. Right now, they are trying to “handicap” men by throwing roadblocks in their work and careers by forced paternity leave and forced limits on how much we can work. When that fails to bring men down to the level of women, the next step will be to try to force men to use the “handicaps” that are described in Harrison Bergeron. Of course, this will lead to the worst economic depression in history, but feminists will just blame that on men.

Why do feminists attack space exploration? The main reason is that space exploration has nothing specifically to do with women. As we know between 70% to 80% of government spending is a transfer from men to women. Money spent by governments on space exploration is money not spent on women. It doesn’t matter that the amount of money spent on space exploration (both by government and privately) is infinitesimal compared to the amount of money spent on women. Feminists are greedy and want it all. Attacking space exploration is also an extension of feminist attacks on science such as by Sandra Harding who called Newton’s Principia Mathematica a rape manual. Space exploration is also very nerdy, and feminists hate nerds as we see with things like #GamerGate.

Something to consider with nerds and space exploration is that space exploration is a way to escape Earth. In the last several decades, nerds went off on their own and created Silicon Valley and the modern tech industry. Feminists do not want to see that happen again with space exploration, especially since if nerds move to Mars (or elsewhere in space), they will be out of the reach of feminists.

We have all heard in the news how NASA’s New Horizons probe has reached Pluto. This is momentous occasion and an amazing achievement in space exploration. That means feminists will attack it just like we saw with Matt Taylor (and Tim Hunt). Since feminists don’t have the excuse of a shirt this time, they have to lie like they did with Tim Hunt. Since there is no opportunity to lie about a single male scientist this time, feminists are attacking NASA like in this article at The Good Mangina Project:

However, for nearly a decade—and longer—America has invested what I would is assume less than half of NASA’s budget on modernizing public education and recreation in the inner-cities.

Spending more dollars on exploring solar-systems than improving school systems is cause for gross critique, not mass celebration.

I don’t applaud America for what my fellow countrymen perceive is a milestone. To the contrary, I shame this rich nation for its skewed priorities. The type of decision making that says unseen space is more valued than an occupied place is not one that deserves respect nor admiration.

And though access to quality public education ranks high on my set of values, which is why I referred to it early on in this piece, other social issues—like veterans’ quality of life, diversity in the technology and news industry, and homelessness—also weigh on me deeply.

Why are feminists like the author of the article at The Good Mangina Project lying about NASA? Most government spending is a transfer from men to women. NASA is one of the few cases where this is not true. The article calls for more spending on “education”. That really means give more money to women since women dominate education and public sector jobs. NASA gets a tiny amount of government spending, but even one dollar spent on NASA is too much since it is not being spent on women. It’s not enough that 70% to 80% of government spending goes to women. They want it all.

And what do we have to show for spending on education and “social issues”, AKA spending on women? Nothing. Every year education gets worse. Various other problems get worse. And the amount of money spent on education and “social issues” grows tremendously each year. We would be better off sending that money into a black hole. Ironically, this would require NASA to build a ship to carry the money to a black hole which would probably do more for education and social issues than handing over 70% to 80% of public spending to women. And it would be cheaper by at least a factor of 100.

this is why your website is evil. it pretends to be a space for men, but in your article you insult people like me. you pretend to be geek by saying us & we but you clearly aren’t because when the man reveals his pain you belittle it by comparing him & us to a scooby doo cartoon & ignoring the argument that he made about joining a country or other organization.

noah, you don’t even run this website anymore. a man-hating girl runs it & you should be ashamed. you’ve let all men. you suck. you shouldn’t be writing about geeks any more than i should be writing about football.

This is a very succinct explanation of everything that is wrong with The Good Mangina Project.

The fucking game was made by men, for men. The fucking game already have a misogynistic set – lots of female prostitutes and strippers, not much (or at all) male whores or strippers. No female protagonists and when they have female roles, they are much more sexualized than the males, again. The whole game is a (straight) male heaven/hell – where women, and other men, are there to serve men for entertainment in every way.

Anything made by men for men (that men enjoy) is considered “misogynist” by feminists simply for having men involved in its production and being produced for men. This explains what is really driving the Zoe Quinns, Anita Sarakeesians, anti-GamerGate, and the rest of the feminists opposed to video games. It’s not that there’s any actual problem with video games. It’s that video games are being made by men (and some women too, but they conveniently left that out) for the purpose of entertaining men. Feminists don’t want men to have fun and don’t want products, whether video games or otherwise, to be made for men. Feminists are trying to destroy all entertainment that appeals to men. That’s part of the motivation behind their attempt to destroy the video games industry and replace it with choose your own adventure stories. Anything else feminists say about the subject is just window dressing.

As you would expect, they lie about women being paid less. What really stood out was this:

Chances are she spends a small fortune on her makeup and underwear compared to you. While it’s true that some women don’t wear make up (or underwear, for that matter) the vast majority of the makeup industry’s revenue is being supplied by women. Her foundation, moisturizer, bronzer, eyeshadow, eyeliner, mascara, lipstick and nail polish? Those supplies collectively cost her well over $100, and likely over an hour of her time to apply it. Your shaving cream, aftershave, and toothpaste? Less than $20. If the makeup argument doesn’t get you, the underwear likely will. Chances are she spends $20 – $30 per pair of underwear, and you spend $10 on a 3-pack…and don’t forget that she likely also has the extra expense of bras.

In the good mangina universe, men never wear undershirts, and underwear is purely a date expense. However, that is beside the point.

If makeup and underwear are such a hardship for women, then women shouldn’t wear them. Women should start a consumer revolt against the makeup and underwear industries. (Women can take a lesson from #GamerGate.) Women should attack the problem (if it really exists) instead of dumping it on men by refusing to pay their share of dates.

Better yet, women should just be naked on dates. That way they will be completely free from being oppressed by the makeup & clothing industries. It makes more sense than the mental gymnastics required by the Good Mangina Project.

Feminists get livid when someone asks a woman if she did something to provoke male violence against them, yet they see no hypocrisy when the genders are changed. In fact, the article contains pretty much every phrase that feminists hate when it comes to male on female violence just with the genders reversed.

I’m surprised that the Good Mangina Project was stupid enough to even post this article. It’s literally like they took an article from feminist fever dreams on male on female violence and then did a find and replace to swap the genders. Couldn’t they figure out that even the few men who are still allowed to comment there would see it as feminist hypocrisy? (Not to mention men outside of the Good Mangina Project.) I guess not. Fortunately, feminists are this stupid and thanks to Google their attempt to pretend this article never existed is a failure. (If this disappears from the Google Cache for some reason, I have saved a copy so it isn’t going anywhere.)

Though, I have read a lot of books to better understand men Randy. Wild at Heart by John Eldridge (He writes a lot of books about men), He’s Just Not up For it Anymore by Bob and Susan Berkowitz, Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should care by Kathleen Parker, For Women Only, What You Need to Know About the Inner Lives of Men by Shaunti Feldhahn, Why Men Stop Having Sex: Men, the Penomenon of Sexless Relationships by Bob Berkowitz, Men in Love by Nancy Friday…to name some.

Take a look at this list of books she read. They’re almost all written by women or written with men with female co-authors. (That’s even before taking into consideration that publishing is female dominated.) If you’re trying to understand men and end up reading books written or co-written by women, then something is wrong. Of course, this woman can’t see that.

If you’re a woman who wants to understand men, then you need to read things that aren’t written or co-written by women and aren’t filtered by women. That means avoiding books for the most part. Try reading A Voice For Men, The Spearhead, or this blog. You may scared or horrified by what you read there, but the only reason for that is because you can’t handle writing that is free of misandry.

I’m sure lots of my readers like me are experts in some are if not multiple areas. It turns out that a man being an expert in something is oppressing women as The Good Mangina Project tells us:

I’ve spoken with other guys in the [tech] industry and it seems pretty mixed. Not the management teams, the situation. Guys either have mostly female managers or all or mostly male. One thing you might find interesting and it’s probably because of the situations dynamic, but I’ve spoken to female managers who have complained that their male subordinates have harassed them. I think that might be because the women in the industry have legitimate power, but the men have expert power. You can’t just replace your top programmer or engineer. I remember getting into an argument with my boss and following her down the hall. Later that day, a guy from another department walked in and was surprised that I was still working there. I reminded him that I was her network administrator, lead application developer, head technician, and the only person in her deportment that had any background in computer engineering. You can’t just fire the guy who keeps things running.

There you have it. A man being in an expert in something oppresses women. If he has female managers and attempts to use that expertise, he is guilty of harassing them. While I was flabbergasted by reading this, I’m not surprised. Feminists and manginas are running into the problem that the reason why men are in a lot of jobs (especially in the tech industry) and now women is because the men are qualified, and the women are not. To get around this problem, feminists will invent a new form of privilege like that will likely be named “expertise privilege” or something similar.

I decided that I hadn’t experienced enough stupidity this week so I went to check out what the Good Men Mangina Project was up to. I found a post about why your man won’t commit. It’s nothing special in terms of its content because it’s something you would see in a women’s magazine or any form of women’s media. What makes it interesting is that it appeared in the Good Mangina Project.

The group running the Good Mangina Project likes to tell us that it’s about men and that men are a part of its conversation. We already know this isn’t the case. A Voice For Men has pointed out that the Good Mangina Project readership is mostly female. It’s mainly written by women and completely for women. However, the Good Mangina Project still tries to maintain the pretense that it’s about men and relevant to men. The post about why men won’t commit completely drops that pretense. Just take a look at the title, “Is Your Man Afraid of Commitment? Here Are 7 Reasons Why”. The title isn’t, “why are you afraid of commitment?” (which would be anti-male enough) or anything else that would engage men. The title and the rest of the post is written makes it clear that the post is for women to read. Men have no part it in except as something for women to complain about.

This post proves what A Voice For Men has been saying about the Good Mangina Project. The authors there aren’t even trying to pretend that their posts are meant for men anymore. The Good Mangina Project is by women and for women. It has no relevance to the lives of men, and now it’s explicitly clear.

At least I hope for his sake that he’s learned this lesson. After all, Tom Matlack picked the hard way to learn it.

As reported by A Voice For Men, Tom Matlack has left The Good Man Mangina Project. What happened here? Tom Matlack is the founder of The Good Mangina Project. Matlack had a severe slap from the reality of feminism when it comes to men, namely that a man can never be mangina enough for feminists. Many manginas have been doubling down on their white knighting over the last few years, and Matlack was no exception.

What happened to Tom Matlack was inevitable. Eventually, every mangina will come face to face with the reality that they can never be anything other than an evil man to feminists. The only question is whether that mangina will accept that reality or go into denial. For Tom Matlack’s sake, I hope he has picked the former, but I would not be surprised if he choose the latter.

We are running out of male spaces. The feminization of game is being attempted. There have been several attempts to turn the MRM into being all about women. (The most recent attempt was the LadyMRAs reddit which was supposedly about women helping the MRM ended up exposing its real agenda when they became rabidly insane against MGTOW.) The only real space that has managed to completely resist and fight off feminization and feminist invasion is MGTOW. At least one reason for this is because women in general see the MGTOW as hostile to women (regardless of what men in the MGTOW space are actually doing).

I’m starting to wonder if it’s even possible to have a male-only space that isn’t hostile to women. And contrary to popular belief, this isn’t because I think any gathering of men will inherently turn misogynistic, rather the opposite.

Any space that isn’t completely alienating to women will eventually be …. “invaded” (for lack of a better term) by women, who will then insist that it conform to their sensibilities. Look at Geek culture for example.

You can see this happening in places like The Good Men Project. Most of their readers are women, a good percentage of their articles are not even remotely about men, and another significant percentage are about how men’s lives affect women. And even when the article is about men… often it is written by a woman.

I’m not sure how good of an example The Good Mangina Project is since it was started by male feminist men, but in thinking about it, 8ball has a point that even The Good Mangina Project now has a much higher percentage of women authors and women commenting and less articles even tangentially relevant to men than when they started. In a way, this does show that male spaces have to be hostile to women to defend against feminization and feminist invasion. While The Good Mangina Project didn’t start out as a true male space, it shows that any space that is feminized will become more feminized over time.

I’m certainly willing to listen to ideas on how to protect male spaces without making them completely hostile and alienating to women, but at this point, I can’t see any other solution to protecting male spaces.